FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

Have a positive and constructive tone

Are on topic, clear and to-the-point

Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

You are reading comments on the story:

Should federal and military investors have more options ó more high-risk, high-reward funds within their Thrift Savings Plan? Some people want to walk on the wild side, Senior Correspondent Mike Causey reports.

TSP for years has maintained the complicated algorithm for keeping military tax free income, tax free for life. While the earnings (assumes earnings) were taxed. I do not accept that a Roth IRA in TSP is/has been delayed due to complications in the computer... I will state here in front of the world, we donít have a Roth TSP account because they donít want us to have one. Now is anyone else has a clue who they are, please tell me.

I agree with Deployed on this one. Why were banks able to implement the Roth quickly back in around 1998 while our TSP cannot do so? The delay is not acceptable, but what can we do?-----------Marien, your point is well taken, but please do not tell anyone to leave the match off the table. If they are willing to take the risk without the regulars paying more of a premium for TSP services and if they do not complain if their investments tank, then why should we object? of course, they will probably complain if their gold fund tanks, so maybe you are right.

Rather than more investment options as such, what's needed is indeed the long-delayed Roth-type category feature, but with the enhancement - which would require legislation - of allowing TSP members to move existing TSP account balances into the Roth-type feature when it becomes available. Recognizing that doing so would mean incurring an immediate tax liability, it still would be a very attractive option for those seeking to build long term tax free assets and inheritance estates. At present, the TSP system is not offering this feature as part of the coming Roth-type feature because it lacks legislative authorization to do so. That needs to change.

To TSP naysayers: Choose any private brokerage or investment firm whose pockets you want to receive your money and minimize your participation in the TSP. It's your choice to pay whatever outrageous management, redemption, and other fees you choose. For CSRS that means you dont' need to participate in the TSP and you never were required so why didn't you choose private investment firms instead of TSP? FERS - just take the government's contributions and don't add any of your own money, forget the match, in spite of advice from top notch advisors who say never turn down retirement money from your employer. Maybe you need some counseling in understanding the root of your anger about the TSP not making you rich enough: data clearly show that the wealth in this country is shifting to a few while the middle class is shrinking. Much of the growing wealth to those few is a result of the middle class' investments into mutual funds, etc. So, while we see our returns tank, they still walk away with massive profits for their own pockets.

Good input from "marien" and "RCP". How rare is it when the government is recognized as a market leader for any product or service? However, the TSP has expenses below the best index funds in the market. "Entitlement Thinking" is never satisfied. Adding some additional sector funds is fine if the current expense model can be maintained or a premium is paid by participants using these funds.

Every time I hear financial planners talk about the gov't TSP they always say it's the best in the market. I agree 100%. Yes, there should be more investment options in the TSP. Yes, folks should be allowed to move from fund to fund on a daily basis. Yes, there should be a ROTH option. I was never into the day trading thing but if folks want to manage their accounts in such a way then I say go for it. The only caveat is if you mismanage your account and end up with a measly balance at retirement don't ask the gov't to bail you out.

For the most part I ageree with you. However, I do not think that the people who do not participate in "excess" trades should be required to subsidize those who do. A mechanism should be set up to have those who make "excess" trades pay the extra management and trading fees.

People forget so easily that TSP participants were limited for the first 10 years of the TSP to small fixed percentages; we were not always allowed to invest up to the 401k legal limit. At that time, if you could save more, you had to have an outside IRA. Also, the financial markets over the last ten years or so have basically gone sideways, so no one should expect to make his or her million on TSP returns. Everybody wants to be like Warren Buffett, but there's only of those. And saving a million, relying on a Government salary? There aren't many people who can do that, even if they are dedicated savers. Frankly, I love the TSP expenses. If you crave the action from the brokerages, you have to pay the price.

I hired on April Fools day 1984 (The joke ended up on me in 2011...) But for three years I could not put a cent into TSP... Most federal agencies I found out years later never even gave folks a chance to make it up. My agency did (USFS), but being 20 something with a house, truck and boat payment never took them up on the 30 day offer. So my first three years I deposited the 1% mandatory Govt portion only... I just wonder, given about 65% of my current balance being earnings, what 10% for that time would have added up to now.

I was hired on in March of 1984. My agency also didn't get the word out that we could make up contributions. So I had nothing but the 1% put in the first three years. Then I started at the 5% (20 somthing with a house payment), then with every raise, promotion or what ever I got I added more until the maximum at that time of 10%. It took about 3 years to get there. But, the accumulating effect of even 5% of investment of the first three years is lost. I am 50 now, so can put in more, but the gain is so much less as to be laughable. At this point I would rather put it in a ROTH, but our joint income takes us out of that until the ROTH 401(k) arrives here at the government. An IRA has no tax free earnings, so why bother? I can and do other investments, but it is not the same.